We'll know more about the current candidates in two weeks.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/01/us-usa-clinton-fundraising-idUSKCN0PB59T20150701

The fundraising figures will be part of the campaign's report to the Federal Election Commission for the fiscal quarter ending on June 30, which is due on July 15. Clinton said on Twitter her campaign was "still running the numbers" for the final report.

The Clinton haul surpasses the $42 million raised by President Barack Obama in 2011 in the first quarter after he announced his re-election bid, the previous record for the first quarter of a campaign.

Clinton is the first 2016 presidential contender to report even a rough estimate of fundraising numbers, which will be viewed as an early indicator of a candidate's appeal and staying power in the race.

The former secretary of state, U.S. senator and first lady has a big lead in polls over three Democratic challengers, giving her broad access to the party's top donors and fundraisers.

LOL

I give what I can

"91% of all @HillaryClinton donations were $100 or less. Thanks so much people"

He did not say that 91% of the money came in the form of donations of $100 or less. You could have 91 people donating $100 each and 9 "people" donating the other $44,990, 900

Last edited Wed Jul 1, 2015, 02:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Then 91% of my donations are $100 or less, but (2700/3700) X 100% = 72.97% of my actual money came from the one large donor.

I would be interested to know, for various candidates, what percent of their total money comes from large donations.

Also, direct donations are only part of the picture, for many candidates much more money is given indirectly to PACs, so another interesting number would be percent of total money raised from PACs.

Anybody know where to find these kind of figures?

I would like to think they do!

Out of curiosity, do you have any actual reason to believe that Hillary Clinton isn't popular with small-money donors? Or is it just that the "candidate of the 1%" mantra is too good to surrender?

I can't see anywhere in my post where I mentioned Hillary Clinton or any other candidate, for that matter. I don't mind having an exchange of ideas, but I think it works better when we respond to things people actually say, not what we imagine they might be thinking.

Here is my post:

Okay, so suppose I get 10 donations of $100 each and one of $2,700.

Last edited Wed Jul 1, 2015, 02:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Then 91% of my donations are $100 or less, but (2700/3700) X 100% = 72.97% of my actual money came from the one large donor.

I would be interested to know, for various candidates, what percent of their total money comes from large donations.

Also, direct donations are only part of the picture, for many candidates much more money is given indirectly to PACs, so another interesting number would be percent of total money raised from PACs.

Anybody know where to find these kind of figures?

And here are your questions:

"Out of curiosity, do you have any actual reason to believe that Hillary Clinton isn't popular with small-money donors? Or is it just that the "candidate of the 1%" mantra is too good to surrender?"

?? I don't see how your questions relate in any remote way to my post ??

Even if 90% of her donations are under $100, if most of her money is from donors giving over $2000, it's just a different picture.

That's what some people people said on this thread.

I don't think we know what her average donation is, because they didn't say. They selected a statistic to make her look good. Since they didn't say what the average donation was, presumably it's not a number that would make her look good. Like if the average donation is $1000, but Bernie's average donation is $35, obviously people can see the difference so there's no need to characterize it. It just means more rich people give to Hillary.

Even though she get's 90% of her donations under $100 apparently, the other 10% of her donors could be giving much larger sums, and people can think about the reasons why. Like maybe her policies are better for rich people compared to Bernie Sanders.

if all of the donors were individual carbon-based life forms then the $2700 would apply.

There are no 1%ers giving Clinton $1 M contributions, either on their own or through a PAC, because it's illegal.

You posted while I was typing, I think.

If 99 people give me $100 each (so $9,900 total) and one PAC gives me $990,000, then 99% of my donations are $100 or less, but I got 99% of my money from the PAC.

So, IMHO, Podesta's numbers don't really tell us too much.

FYI.

A PAC is merely a political action committee where the money it raises is public and there are limits as to what can be raised.

What Bernie doesn't have is a Super PAC which can raise unlimited money and does NOT have to publically acknowledge who donated the money.

There is a huge difference between these two types of organizations which I am sure you understand perfectly well.

I just figure anyone following this thread also deserves to know.

is a Super PAC. He says he hasn't sanctioned it, but then none of the candidates do since coordination is prohibited by law.


Additionally, people have the right to know that none of the contributions listed above are from PACs of any kind. They are all from individuals. PACs do not contribute directly to politicians. Don't you think they deserve to know that?

They should also know that 91 percent of donations is not 91 donations. It is rather 91 out of every 100, meaning 9 out of every 100 was over $100.

Is Bet on Bernie a PAC or a superPAC.

Their website has a donor list with amounts listed but I was unable to find out whether it was actually a 5013(c).

Please provide a link or some data or something.

Donors can specify which they are giving to.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2015/05/30/sanders-unable-superpacs/28184005/

Is that a goalpost?

A 747

or a fish.

I can't tell.

But I have a Visa gift card with $11.05 left on it. I'm going to give half of it to HRC.

She will be good keep the $11.

is not a good look for anyone.

She seems unstoppable at this stage